Dismissed

Dr S M Hashim v. Mr Mohammed Mateen

Karnataka HC29 Nov 2021RFA/1953/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a regular first appeal for non-prosecution. The appellant failed to appear after multiple opportunities and refused to pay court costs, leading to dismissal. Cost enforcement was directed to the Karnataka Advocates Clerks' Benevolent Trust.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed for non-compliance of office objections and non-prosecution; the beneficiary of the unpaid costs is at liberty to enforce the order.

Dr S M Hashim Vs Mr Mohammed Mateen — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

¶4

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No. 1953 OF 2018

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

DR.S.M. HASHIM, S/O LATE ABDUL RAHEM, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, GENERAL POWER ATTORNEY, NO. 1401, 14^TH MAIN, 3^RD CROSS, 4^TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 011. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI V. CHANDRAKANTHAN., ADVOCATE)

¶7

AND:

¶8

MR. MOHAMMED MATEEN, S/O MR. MOHAMMED ANWAR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, TASBI COLLECTIONS, NO.26, SANIA PLAZA, OPP. PALACE MALL (THEATRE) QUADRANT ROAD, SHIVAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENT

¶9

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE

¶10

¶11

RFA No. 1953/2018

¶12

DATED 06.09.2018 IN O.S.NO.7348/2016 ON THE FILE OF LVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY (CCH-57), DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND ETC.,

¶13

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

ORDER

¶15

None appear for the appellant in the matter either physically or through video conference. No reasons are forthcoming for the non-appearance of the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶16

A perusal of the order sheet would go to show that this appeal is of the year 2018. Inspite of granting several and sufficient opportunities, the appellant has not complied the office objections. Several opportunities of not less than five times, including final and last chance, were all granted to the appellant, in spite of which, he has not complied the office objections.

¶17

RFA No. 1953/2018

¶18

¶19

After exhausting the opportunity, even as

¶20

finally and last chance also, this Court on 20.04.2021 once again, as finally, granted two weeks time to the appellant to comply the office objections, however, on payment of cost of `1,500/to 'Karnataka Advocates Clerk's Benevolent Trust' and to file an acknowledgement to that effect in the registry. Despite the same, the appellant has neither paid the cost nor filed an acknowledgement in the registry and not even shown any reason for non-compliance of office objections as well as for nonpayment of cost and not even appeared before the Court either physically or through video conference. As such, it can be inferred that the appellant is neither interested in prosecuting the matter nor willing to comply the office objections.

¶21

In view of the above, the Appeal stands

¶22

dismissed for non-compliance of office objections, as well for non-prosecution.

¶23

RFA No. 1953/2018 4

¶24

However, the beneficiary of the cost i.e., the

¶25

Karnataka Advocates Clerks' Benevolent Trust, High Court Buildings, Bengaluru is at liberty to enforce the said order as a civil decree for its execution in the manner known to law before the competent Court.

¶26

Registry to transmit a copy of this order to the Karnataka Advocates Clerks' Benevolent Trust, High Court Buildings, Bengaluru, forthwith.

¶27

JUDGE

¶28

mbb

Dr S M Hashim v. Mr Mohammed Mateen

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr S M Hashim v. Mr Mohammed Mateen

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Krishnoji Rao N S Vs Smt Sharada

Dhanalakshmi Vs Smt Shakuntala

Kumar S Vs State of Karnataka

Mandeda N Rabitha Vs Smt M Akhila Ganapathy

Sri S Sham Raju Vs Smt Meena

Hanumantharayappa Vs Y.M. Krishnamurthy